I have listened to your defense of sexual license among human beings for years.

This is another piece of evidence that Catholics do not understand Orthodox teaching and so they distort it. The presentation of accepted Orthodox teaching and guidelines in the use of contraception is assessed by Roman Catholics such as Elijahmaria as a "defense of sexual license among human beings..."

You have made your own position abundantly clear over the years. You have indicated in a hundred different ways that ordinary people cannot be expected to do the hard work of sexual abstinence, even for a brief periodic time. What kind of spiritual rigor does that produce, I wonder. I have said all that I am going to say to you about that.

Based on Fr. Ambrose's posting history here, and despite the fact that he and I disagree on a subject or two generally, I find this hard to believe. Proof?

If you be mindful that I have said that Father Ambrose leans on the side of laxity rather than strictness when it comes to human sexuality and moral practice, and promotes barrier methods of birth control because he thinks that abstinence is too difficult for the average person, then I will submit the following for your greater understanding of my own perceptions of the man and monk:

Is that realistic? I've not been married but I can imagine that it would take a ton of forbearance to sleep night after night next to a bowl of luscious cherries (Song of Songs) and not take a bite.

Fr Ambrois

I don't think this message from Fr. Ambrose says quite what you think it says, particularly stripped from its context as you have rendered it. For one, you've not provided any part of the conversation that reveals just exactly what you all were talking about. You've explained it in your own words--IOW, spin--earlier in this post, but we need to see the actual conversation to be able to judge properly. Fortunately, I just read that thread to which you make reference. Fr. Ambrose was talking about sexual relations between a man and his wife. To question the realism of any idea that a married couple should abstain from sexual relations for more than just a very brief time is a far cry from defending sexual license among human beings, as you so glibly claim against Fr. Ambrose. IOW, Mary, I find your selective use of quotations very deceiving and dishonest.

PS: You are more than willing to take Father Augustine's and Father Ambrose Young's posts totally out of context and shoot Father Augustine like a duck in a carnival arcade. That seems to be just fine.

I am not taking aim at "Father Augustine" but at his perverse statements on marriage and sexuality. You yourself did that too.

Why do you call him "Father Augustine"? Who has tonsured him a monk? My understanding is that he was received by the Greeks and became a spiritual child of Fr Ambrose Young. Then lately he has left the Greeks... and may have entered ROCA? If he is in fact a tonsured monk how on earth did he receive a canonical transfer from the Greeks to ROCA? Nobody in ROCA seems to have heard of him.

Hitherto I have kept his name under wraps in this thread. He is young and a work in progress, but you have now named him publicly. Perhaps you could ask him these questions on your e-list?

But you have to admit that you're being dishonest by alleging that Fr. Ambrose advocates sexual license and by withholding information that refutes your allegation. As I learned honesty, not telling the whole truth is often as bad as telling a lie.

No. I don't need to admit that at all.

We are speaking in the context of an Orthodox Patriarch saying that he and the Catholic Pope are of like mind on moral issues.

In the context of ALL methods of birth control in Catholic marriages, for a priest to encourage a couple to go ahead and use barrier methods because abstinence is too difficult is an example of sexual license. Perhaps you simply cannot follow my line of reasoning because you do not have a Catholic phronema.

Since Father Ambrose, from New Zealand, is very clear that his bishop supports his actions and so thereby his Patriarch. Since that is the case my conclusions stand.

There is no moral like mindedness between the Patriarch in question and the Pope when it comes to artificial birth control. So the entire assertion can be thrown out till there is a closer and more clearly stated accord.

I have listened to your defense of sexual license among human beings for years.

This is another piece of evidence that Catholics do not understand Orthodox teaching and so they distort it. The presentation of accepted Orthodox teaching and guidelines in the use of contraception is assessed by Roman Catholics such as Elijahmaria as a "defense of sexual license among human beings..."

You have made your own position abundantly clear over the years. You have indicated in a hundred different ways that ordinary people cannot be expected to do the hard work of sexual abstinence, even for a brief periodic time. What kind of spiritual rigor does that produce, I wonder. I have said all that I am going to say to you about that.

Based on Fr. Ambrose's posting history here, and despite the fact that he and I disagree on a subject or two generally, I find this hard to believe. Proof?

If you be mindful that I have said that Father Ambrose leans on the side of laxity rather than strictness when it comes to human sexuality and moral practice, and promotes barrier methods of birth control because he thinks that abstinence is too difficult for the average person, then I will submit the following for your greater understanding of my own perceptions of the man and monk:

Is that realistic? I've not been married but I can imagine that it would take a ton of forbearance to sleep night after night next to a bowl of luscious cherries (Song of Songs) and not take a bite.

Fr Ambrois

I don't think this message from Fr. Ambrose says quite what you think it says, particularly stripped from its context as you have rendered it. For one, you've not provided any part of the conversation that reveals just exactly what you all were talking about. You've explained it in your own words--IOW, spin--earlier in this post, but we need to see the actual conversation to be able to judge properly. Fortunately, I just read that thread to which you make reference. Fr. Ambrose was talking about sexual relations between a man and his wife. To question the realism of any idea that a married couple should abstain from sexual relations for more than just a very brief time is a far cry from defending sexual license among human beings, as you so glibly claim against Fr. Ambrose. IOW, Mary, I find your selective use of quotations very deceiving and dishonest.

PS: You are more than willing to take Father Augustine's and Father Ambrose Young's posts totally out of context and shoot Father Augustine like a duck in a carnival arcade. That seems to be just fine.

I am not taking aim at "Father Augustine" but at his perverse statements on marriage and sexuality. You yourself did that too.

Why do you call him "Father Augustine"? Who has tonsured him a monk? My understanding is that he was received by the Greeks and became a spiritual child of Fr Ambrose Young. Then lately he has left the Greeks... and may have entered ROCA? If he is in fact a tonsured monk how on earth did he receive a canonical transfer from the Greeks to ROCA? Nobody in ROCA seems to have heard of him.

Hitherto I have kept his name under wraps in this thread. He is young and a work in progress, but you have now named him publicly. Perhaps you could ask him these questions on your e-list?

You will have to ask him yourself. I have your private letter telling me that you were going to write to his mother and his bishop. Apparently you've done your checking already. I truly hope you did not bother his mother with such things.

This is really an Orthodox-Orthodox issue now, so perhaps you'd like to start a new thread about your findings on Father Deacon Augustine?

Since Father Ambrose, from New Zealand, is very clear that his bishop supports his actions and so thereby his Patriarch. Since that is the case my conclusions stand.

There is no moral like mindedness between the Patriarch in question and the Pope when it comes to artificial birth control. So the entire assertion can be thrown out till there is a closer and more clearly stated accord.

Oh my! So now you have ratcheted it up a peg and are accusing my bishops and my Patriarch of promoting sexual licence!!!

I have listened to your defense of sexual license among human beings for years.

This is another piece of evidence that Catholics do not understand Orthodox teaching and so they distort it. The presentation of accepted Orthodox teaching and guidelines in the use of contraception is assessed by Roman Catholics such as Elijahmaria as a "defense of sexual license among human beings..."

You have made your own position abundantly clear over the years. You have indicated in a hundred different ways that ordinary people cannot be expected to do the hard work of sexual abstinence, even for a brief periodic time. What kind of spiritual rigor does that produce, I wonder. I have said all that I am going to say to you about that.

Based on Fr. Ambrose's posting history here, and despite the fact that he and I disagree on a subject or two generally, I find this hard to believe. Proof?

If you be mindful that I have said that Father Ambrose leans on the side of laxity rather than strictness when it comes to human sexuality and moral practice, and promotes barrier methods of birth control because he thinks that abstinence is too difficult for the average person, then I will submit the following for your greater understanding of my own perceptions of the man and monk:

Is that realistic? I've not been married but I can imagine that it would take a ton of forbearance to sleep night after night next to a bowl of luscious cherries (Song of Songs) and not take a bite.

Fr Ambrois

I don't think this message from Fr. Ambrose says quite what you think it says, particularly stripped from its context as you have rendered it. For one, you've not provided any part of the conversation that reveals just exactly what you all were talking about. You've explained it in your own words--IOW, spin--earlier in this post, but we need to see the actual conversation to be able to judge properly. Fortunately, I just read that thread to which you make reference. Fr. Ambrose was talking about sexual relations between a man and his wife. To question the realism of any idea that a married couple should abstain from sexual relations for more than just a very brief time is a far cry from defending sexual license among human beings, as you so glibly claim against Fr. Ambrose. IOW, Mary, I find your selective use of quotations very deceiving and dishonest.

PS: You are more than willing to take Father Augustine's and Father Ambrose Young's posts totally out of context and shoot Father Augustine like a duck in a carnival arcade. That seems to be just fine.

I am not taking aim at "Father Augustine" but at his perverse statements on marriage and sexuality. You yourself did that too.

Why do you call him "Father Augustine"? Who has tonsured him a monk? My understanding is that he was received by the Greeks and became a spiritual child of Fr Ambrose Young. Then lately he has left the Greeks... and may have entered ROCA? If he is in fact a tonsured monk how on earth did he receive a canonical transfer from the Greeks to ROCA? Nobody in ROCA seems to have heard of him.

Hitherto I have kept his name under wraps in this thread. He is young and a work in progress, but you have now named him publicly. Perhaps you could ask him these questions on your e-list?

You will have to ask him yourself. I have your private letter telling me that you were going to write to his mother and his bishop.

I believe that several of us, including the onlist bishop, toyed with the notion of writing to his bishop at the time he was bombarding the e-list with his septic views of marriage. I imagine that nobody actually did.

Quote

This is really an Orthodox-Orthodox issue now, so perhaps you'd like to start a new thread about your findings on Father Deacon Augustine?

Somebody has made him a deacon? Is he a hierodeacon or one of these newfangled celibate deacons?

Since Father Ambrose, from New Zealand, is very clear that his bishop supports his actions and so thereby his Patriarch. Since that is the case my conclusions stand.

There is no moral like mindedness between the Patriarch in question and the Pope when it comes to artificial birth control. So the entire assertion can be thrown out till there is a closer and more clearly stated accord.

Oh my! So now you have ratcheted it up a peg and are accusing my bishops and my Patriarch of promoting sexual licence!!!

Barrier method birth control, if what you say is correct. That is what fits into my own assertion concerning the Patriarch's somewhat premature announcement about the like-mindedness of the Catholic Pope on moral issues.

To be exact, that is not what I say. "Barrier method birth control" is your terminology. The term which I use is the one used in the 2000 Statement of the Patriarch and the Russian Synod, "Non-abortive contraception."

To be exact, that is not what I say. "Barrier method birth control" is your terminology. The term which I use is the one used in the 2000 Statement of the Patriarch and the Russian Synod, "Non-abortive contraception."

To be exact, that is not what I say. "Barrier method birth control" is your terminology. The term which I use is the one used in the 2000 Statement of the Patriarch and the Russian Synod, "Non-abortive contraception."

Is there a pill that doesn't act as an abortifacient?

M.

Is there an ectopic pregnancy surgery which does not act as an abortifacient?

This is problematical since it is reported that so many American Catholic women today are taking the birth control pill, but as far as I can see they are not excommunicated for having abortions induced by the pill.

To be exact, that is not what I say. "Barrier method birth control" is your terminology. The term which I use is the one used in the 2000 Statement of the Patriarch and the Russian Synod, "Non-abortive contraception."

Is there a pill that doesn't act as an abortifacient?

M.

Is there an ectopic pregnancy surgery which does not act as an abortifacient?

The is NO chance for viability of the baby in an ectopic pregnancy. Zero chance. No exceptions.

This is problematical since it is reported that so many American Catholic women today are taking the birth control pill, but as far as I can see they are not excommunicated for having abortions induced by the pill.

How is it problematical? It is sinful. But does it negate the teaching?

To be exact, that is not what I say. "Barrier method birth control" is your terminology. The term which I use is the one used in the 2000 Statement of the Patriarch and the Russian Synod, "Non-abortive contraception."

Is there a pill that doesn't act as an abortifacient?

M.

Is there an ectopic pregnancy surgery which does not act as an abortifacient?

The is NO chance for viability of the baby in an ectopic pregnancy. Zero chance. No exceptions.

Do you know anyone who calls ectopic surgery an abortion?

I would regard the surgery needed to end an ectopic pregnancy as involving an abortifacient procedure. The foetus does not come out of it alive.

To be exact, that is not what I say. "Barrier method birth control" is your terminology. The term which I use is the one used in the 2000 Statement of the Patriarch and the Russian Synod, "Non-abortive contraception."

Is there a pill that doesn't act as an abortifacient?

M.

Is there an ectopic pregnancy surgery which does not act as an abortifacient?

The is NO chance for viability of the baby in an ectopic pregnancy. Zero chance. No exceptions.

Do you know anyone who calls ectopic surgery an abortion?

I would regard the surgery needed to end an ectopic pregnancy as involving an abortifacient procedure. The foetus does not come out of it alive.

I would regard an ectopic pregnancy as a non-viable pregnancy under any conditions. Therefore ectopic surgery is not, morally speaking, an abortion.

Recommending ectopic surgery is morally not in the same class as recommending artificial birth control because one cannot fathom how a married couple can practice periodic abstinence.

"However, in his approach on many public and moral issues, the Pope coincides fully with the approach of the Russian Orthodox Church.."

Notice the many, not all.

Well there ya have it. End of discussion.

Why should that be surprising? You started this discussion--yeah, I know, Fr. Ambrose started the thread, but the real debate started with you--by jumping all over the birth control and abortion wagon.

"However, in his approach on many public and moral issues, the Pope coincides fully with the approach of the Russian Orthodox Church.."

Notice the many, not all.

Well there ya have it. End of discussion.

Why should that be surprising? You started this discussion--yeah, I know, Fr. Ambrose started the thread, but the real debate started with you--by jumping all over the birth control and abortion wagon.

I implore you, as the moderator of this sub-forum, to take a step back and spend a day in reflection on how both of you are presenting yourselves to this website and to the world at large. This is obviously a very deep-seated argument you two are having with one another out in public. Regardless of who is right and who is wrong, please take a moment to remember that your words here on the internet are forever and, thanks to the way humanity looks at people nowadays, will be indicative of both your reputations, for better or for worse.

This constant bickering between you two often goes past the issue being discussed. Please put an end to it, at least in this thread.

Thank you.

Schultz.Orthodox-Catholic Discussion moderator.

Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen

I implore you, as the moderator of this sub-forum, to take a step back and spend a day in reflection on how both of you are presenting yourselves to this website and to the world at large. This is obviously a very deep-seated argument you two are having with one another out in public. Regardless of who is right and who is wrong, please take a moment to remember that your words here on the internet are forever and, thanks to the way humanity looks at people nowadays, will be indicative of both your reputations, for better or for worse.

This constant bickering between you two often goes past the issue being discussed. Please put an end to it, at least in this thread.

Thank you.

Schultz.Orthodox-Catholic Discussion moderator.

You are quite right and I am sorry I sailed out into that deep!!

I apologize to Father Ambrose as well.

I should have caved when Father George called for proof. I knew it was time then and I did the opposite.

This is problematical since it is reported that so many American Catholic women today are taking the birth control pill, but as far as I can see they are not excommunicated for having abortions induced by the pill.

How is it problematical? It is sinful. But does it negate the teaching?

Why are they not excommunicated since they are having abortions by taking the pill?

I implore you, as the moderator of this sub-forum, to take a step back and spend a day in reflection on how both of you are presenting yourselves to this website and to the world at large. This is obviously a very deep-seated argument you two are having with one another out in public. Regardless of who is right and who is wrong, please take a moment to remember that your words here on the internet are forever and, thanks to the way humanity looks at people nowadays, will be indicative of both your reputations, for better or for worse.

This constant bickering between you two often goes past the issue being discussed. Please put an end to it, at least in this thread.

Thank you.

Schultz.Orthodox-Catholic Discussion moderator.

You are quite right and I am sorry I sailed out into that deep!!

I apologize to Father Ambrose as well.

I should have caved when Father George called for proof. I knew it was time then and I did the opposite.

I was wrong.

M.

APOLOGY

Dear Mary,

Thank you. I accept your apology and saying that you were wrong in the claim that I have been preaching sexual licence to the faithful for years.

I implore you, as the moderator of this sub-forum, to take a step back and spend a day in reflection on how both of you are presenting yourselves to this website and to the world at large. This is obviously a very deep-seated argument you two are having with one another out in public. Regardless of who is right and who is wrong, please take a moment to remember that your words here on the internet are forever and, thanks to the way humanity looks at people nowadays, will be indicative of both your reputations, for better or for worse.

This constant bickering between you two often goes past the issue being discussed. Please put an end to it, at least in this thread.

Thank you.

Schultz.Orthodox-Catholic Discussion moderator.

You are quite right and I am sorry I sailed out into that deep!!

I apologize to Father Ambrose as well.

I should have caved when Father George called for proof. I knew it was time then and I did the opposite.

I was wrong.

M.

APOLOGY

Dear Mary,

Thank you. I accept your apology and saying that you were wrong in the claim that I have been preaching sexual licence to the faithful for years.

Thank you to Schultz who has brought this to a conclusion.

And to Mary -my own apology for any stress I have caused.

Fr Ambrose

It's true Father. You are not a licentious priest or man nor do you encourage such behaviors in a general way.

I still think that Orthodoxy, in general, is making a moral mistake by calling for artificial birth control methods rather than teaching periodic abstinence as the rule. I think you in particular are equally mistaken and do give license to certain kinds of thinking that are not conducive to spiritual depth and growth. I cannot apologize for that.

I think my own Church will learn this lesson...and by that I mean shepherds and flocks...and I believe yours will as well....one way or another.

This is problematical since it is reported that so many American Catholic women today are taking the birth control pill, but as far as I can see they are not excommunicated for having abortions induced by the pill.

How is it problematical? It is sinful. But does it negate the teaching?

Why are they not excommunicated since they are having abortions by taking the pill?

They are Stanley. Nobody stands up and points fingers at them because we don't know who they are in many cases...most cases...But they excommunicate themselves by their behaviors and lack of repentance and they commune to their own condemnation.

And that is not a joke and is not something to be brushed aside. We should pray for them every moment of every day for there are souls in the balance and the harder the heart the more chance they have of damnation.

I implore you, as the moderator of this sub-forum, to take a step back and spend a day in reflection on how both of you are presenting yourselves to this website and to the world at large. This is obviously a very deep-seated argument you two are having with one another out in public. Regardless of who is right and who is wrong, please take a moment to remember that your words here on the internet are forever and, thanks to the way humanity looks at people nowadays, will be indicative of both your reputations, for better or for worse.

This constant bickering between you two often goes past the issue being discussed. Please put an end to it, at least in this thread.

Thank you.

Schultz.Orthodox-Catholic Discussion moderator.

You are quite right and I am sorry I sailed out into that deep!!

I apologize to Father Ambrose as well.

I should have caved when Father George called for proof. I knew it was time then and I did the opposite.

I was wrong.

M.

APOLOGY

Dear Mary,

Thank you. I accept your apology and saying that you were wrong in the claim that I have been preaching sexual licence to the faithful for years.

Thank you to Schultz who has brought this to a conclusion.

And to Mary -my own apology for any stress I have caused.

Fr Ambrose

It's true Father. You are not a licentious priest or man nor do you encourage such behaviors in a general way.

I still think that Orthodoxy, in general, is making a moral mistake by calling for artificial birth control methods rather than teaching periodic abstinence as the rule. I think you in particular are equally mistaken and do give license to certain kinds of thinking that are not conducive to spiritual depth and growth. I cannot apologize for that.

I think my own Church will learn this lesson...and by that I mean shepherds and flocks...and I believe yours will as well....one way or another.

M.

And so it continues. When will you understand that the Orthodox Church does not "call for artificial birth control methods." Where do you find this except for the teachings of some priests? What canon allows this? What holy elder allows for it in his writings? You have cited very little evidence and nothing that would make this the teaching of the Orthodox Church. There is no blessing for it. If married couples do it and some spiritual fathers are understanding in the matter because the use of non-abortofacient birth control prevents a greater sin as they come to understand in giving pastoral counsel, this does not indicate that it is the teaching of the Orthodox Church. Because a spiritual father chooses, for reasons of trying to prevent a soul's destruction, not to enforce the stricture of a canon, this does not mean that the Orthodox Church is lax in a matter. In many local churches, such as the Greek Orthodox Church, as I have been given to understand, those using non-abortofacient birth control can only commune four times a year on certain great feasts. But you want to justify yourself by denigrating the Orthodox Church.

Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt

If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.

Quote from: orthonorm

I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.

And so it continues. When will you understand that the Orthodox Church does not "call for artificial birth control methods." Where do you find this except for the teachings of some priests? What canon allows this? What holy elder allows for it in his writings? You have cited very little evidence and nothing that would make this the teaching of the Orthodox Church. There is no blessing for it. If married couples do it and some spiritual fathers are understanding in the matter because the use of non-abortofacient birth control prevents a greater sin as they come to understand in giving pastoral counsel, this does not indicate that it is the teaching of the Orthodox Church. Because a spiritual father chooses, for reasons of trying to prevent a soul's destruction, not to enforce the stricture of a canon, this does not mean that the Orthodox Church is lax in a matter. In many local churches, such as the Greek Orthodox Church, as I have been given to understand, those using non-abortofacient birth control can only commune four times a year on certain great feasts. But you want to justify yourself by denigrating the Orthodox Church.

I will understand these things more fully when they are made more clear formally by Orthodox hierarchs and clergy. I expect the continuing dialogue between Rome and the Orthodox hierarchs will help to clarify many things.

Who are you trying to justify here? Inquiring minds and all that since you choose to accuse....

This is problematical since it is reported that so many American Catholic women today are taking the birth control pill, but as far as I can see they are not excommunicated for having abortions induced by the pill.

How is it problematical? It is sinful. But does it negate the teaching?

Why are they not excommunicated since they are having abortions by taking the pill?

They are Stanley. Nobody stands up and points fingers at them because we don't know who they are in many cases...most cases...But they excommunicate themselves by their behaviors and lack of repentance and they commune to their own condemnation.

And that is not a joke and is not something to be brushed aside. We should pray for them every moment of every day for there are souls in the balance and the harder the heart the more chance they have of damnation.

But nobody really believes that anymore do they

I think the blame lies with Pope Paul VI and his adamantine forbidding of all contraception as mortally sinful and bringing damnation.

By Catholic teaching a woman is damned if she uses either the Pill or if she cooperates with her husband in using condoms. Both methods bring eternal death. So the couple will simply choose whichever method suits them better, knowing that both damn them equally.

By contrast the Orthodox know that they are permitted to use condoms but not permitted to use abortive methods such as the Pill. So they will choose to use condoms. (I not saying that some do not use the Pill though.)

We know from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops that around 97% of married Catholics use contraceptive methods which their Church condemns as gravely sinful. It is probably true that the majority of these are not bothering with condoms but instead are using the abortifacient Pill.

Truly sad, that Catholics are aborting so many millions of their young. It would have been far better if Paul VI had taken a less hard-line view and allowed the use of condoms. The Catholic rate of murder would have been far less.

In this respect I would agree with Mary that the Patriarch was wrong in seeing our moral ethos as identical.

This is problematical since it is reported that so many American Catholic women today are taking the birth control pill, but as far as I can see they are not excommunicated for having abortions induced by the pill.

How is it problematical? It is sinful. But does it negate the teaching?

Why are they not excommunicated since they are having abortions by taking the pill?

They are Stanley. Nobody stands up and points fingers at them because we don't know who they are in many cases...most cases...But they excommunicate themselves by their behaviors and lack of repentance and they commune to their own condemnation.

And that is not a joke and is not something to be brushed aside. We should pray for them every moment of every day for there are souls in the balance and the harder the heart the more chance they have of damnation.

But nobody really believes that anymore do they

I think the blame lies with Pope Paul VI and his adamantine forbidding of all contraception as mortally sinful and bringing damnation.

By Catholic teaching a woman is damned if she uses either the Pill or if she cooperates with her husband in using condoms. Both methods bring eternal death. So the couple will simply choose whichever method suits them better, knowing that both damn them equally.

By contrast the Orthodox know that they are permitted to use condoms but not permitted to use abortive methods such as the Pill. So they will choose to use condoms. (I not saying that some do not use the Pill though.)

We know from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops that around 97% of married Catholics use contraceptive methods which their Church condemns as gravely sinful. It is probably true that the majority of these are not bothering with condoms but instead are using the abortifacient Pill.

Truly sad, that Catholics are aborting so many millions of their young. It would have been far better if Paul VI had taken a less hard-line view and allowed the use of condoms. The Catholic rate of murder would have been far less.

In this respect I would agree with Mary that the Patriarch was wrong in seeing our moral ethos as identical.

The difficulty with such laxity, Father, is that you can take this same parsing of better and worse sins and apply it to every sin in the Decalogue.

Murder as opposed to a little high strung tension and frustration....as though a little frustration and tension over time cannot harden the human heart!!

A little harmless playful passive sexual desire acted out as fantasy internally, as opposed to full blown and active lust....as though the fantasy of the libido over time cannot harden the human heart!!

etc., etc., etc.

It is an asinine argument, Father and one not worthy of a faith steeped in the desert fathers as well as the patristic ones!!

Well...there goes the neanderthal!!...I just cannot seem to be able to pull myself up out of the dark ages of Catholic guilt!

I implore you, as the moderator of this sub-forum, to take a step back and spend a day in reflection on how both of you are presenting yourselves to this website and to the world at large. This is obviously a very deep-seated argument you two are having with one another out in public. Regardless of who is right and who is wrong, please take a moment to remember that your words here on the internet are forever and, thanks to the way humanity looks at people nowadays, will be indicative of both your reputations, for better or for worse.

This constant bickering between you two often goes past the issue being discussed. Please put an end to it, at least in this thread.

Thank you.

Schultz.Orthodox-Catholic Discussion moderator.

You are quite right and I am sorry I sailed out into that deep!!

I apologize to Father Ambrose as well.

I should have caved when Father George called for proof. I knew it was time then and I did the opposite.

I was wrong.

M.

APOLOGY

Dear Mary,

Thank you. I accept your apology and saying that you were wrong in the claim that I have been preaching sexual licence to the faithful for years.

Thank you to Schultz who has brought this to a conclusion.

And to Mary -my own apology for any stress I have caused.

Fr Ambrose

It's true Father. You are not a licentious priest or man nor do you encourage such behaviors in a general way.

I still think that Orthodoxy, in general, is making a moral mistake by calling for artificial birth control methods rather than teaching periodic abstinence as the rule. I think you in particular are equally mistaken and do give license to certain kinds of thinking that are not conducive to spiritual depth and growth. I cannot apologize for that.

I think my own Church will learn this lesson...and by that I mean shepherds and flocks...and I believe yours will as well....one way or another.

M.

And so it continues. When will you understand that the Orthodox Church does not "call for artificial birth control methods." Where do you find this except for the teachings of some priests? What canon allows this? What holy elder allows for it in his writings? You have cited very little evidence and nothing that would make this the teaching of the Orthodox Church. There is no blessing for it. If married couples do it and some spiritual fathers are understanding in the matter because the use of non-abortofacient birth control prevents a greater sin as they come to understand in giving pastoral counsel, this does not indicate that it is the teaching of the Orthodox Church. Because a spiritual father chooses, for reasons of trying to prevent a soul's destruction, not to enforce the stricture of a canon, this does not mean that the Orthodox Church is lax in a matter. In many local churches, such as the Greek Orthodox Church, as I have been given to understand, those using non-abortofacient birth control can only commune four times a year on certain great feasts. But you want to justify yourself by denigrating the Orthodox Church.

The unfortunate policy of the Catholic Church has resulted in the ongoing murder of millions of Catholic babies by Catholic women using the Pill.

Possibly Pope Paul VI had not taken the enormous number of these homicides into consideration when he issued Humanae Vitae in 1965. At the time of his writing the encyclical the use of the Pill was being made available to the masses.

By contrast the Orthodox permission to use condoms avoids such murders of the innocent.

The unfortunate policy of the Catholic Church has resulted in the ongoing murder of millions of Catholic babies by Catholic women using the Pill.

Possibly Pope Paul VI had not taken the enormous number of these homicides into consideration when he issued Humanae Vitae in 1965. At the time of his writing the encyclical the use of the Pill was being made available to the masses.

By contrast the Orthodox permission to use condoms avoids such murders of the innocent.

What?

Are you really telling me that Catholic women take the pill because the Church teaches they cannot use condoms? Why not just tell them about the pills that don't appear to be abortifacients?

Do you really think that when faced with a choice that thoroughly modern married guys and gals are going to choose the "raincoat" when they can take a little pill instead?

You will go to great lengths to say some of the evil things that you say about the Catholic Church and use the most inane arguments to justify your little games.

The unfortunate policy of the Catholic Church has resulted in the ongoing murder of millions of Catholic babies by Catholic women using the Pill.

Possibly Pope Paul VI had not taken the enormous number of these homicides into consideration when he issued Humanae Vitae in 1965. At the time of his writing the encyclical the use of the Pill was being made available to the masses.

By contrast the Orthodox permission to use condoms avoids such murders of the innocent.

What?

Are you really telling me that Catholic women take the pill because the Church teaches they cannot use condoms?

No, that is simply silly.

Catholic couples are told that both the Pill and condoms will send them to hell.

The result for their spiritual fate in eternity is the same - eternal fire.

So the Catholic couples whom I know using contraception chose to use the Pill - they're told they're going to hell either way, right? Catholic couples find the use of the Pill more convenient than condoms.

The unfortunate policy of the Catholic Church has resulted in the ongoing murder of millions of Catholic babies by Catholic women using the Pill.

Possibly Pope Paul VI had not taken the enormous number of these homicides into consideration when he issued Humanae Vitae in 1965. At the time of his writing the encyclical the use of the Pill was being made available to the masses.

By contrast the Orthodox permission to use condoms avoids such murders of the innocent.

What?

Are you really telling me that Catholic women take the pill because the Church teaches they cannot use condoms?

No, that is simply silly.

Catholic couples are told that both the Pill and condoms will send them to hell.

The result for their spiritual fate in eternity is the same - eternal fire.

So the Catholic couples whom I know using contraception chose to use the Pill - they're told they're going to hell either way, right? Catholic couples find the use of the Pill more convenient than condoms.

And Orthodox couples do not?

If couples will not use condoms predictably and properly to keep from transmitting HIV-AIDS and the hell on earth that brings, what makes you think they will happily use condoms to stay out of a metaphorical lake of fire that they can be prayed out from anyway?

The unfortunate policy of the Catholic Church has resulted in the ongoing murder of millions of Catholic babies by Catholic women using the Pill.

Possibly Pope Paul VI had not taken the enormous number of these homicides into consideration when he issued Humanae Vitae in 1965. At the time of his writing the encyclical the use of the Pill was being made available to the masses.

By contrast the Orthodox permission to use condoms avoids such murders of the innocent.

What?

Are you really telling me that Catholic women take the pill because the Church teaches they cannot use condoms?

No, that is simply silly.

Catholic couples are told that both the Pill and condoms will send them to hell.

The result for their spiritual fate in eternity is the same - eternal fire.

So the Catholic couples whom I know using contraception chose to use the Pill - they're told they're going to hell either way, right? Catholic couples find the use of the Pill more convenient than condoms.

And Orthodox couples do not?

In my experience, generally no. You may like to consult Fr Ambrose Young about his experience (although I do not know the sizes of the parishes of which he was parish priest.)

The unfortunate policy of the Catholic Church has resulted in the ongoing murder of millions of Catholic babies by Catholic women using the Pill.

Possibly Pope Paul VI had not taken the enormous number of these homicides into consideration when he issued Humanae Vitae in 1965. At the time of his writing the encyclical the use of the Pill was being made available to the masses.

By contrast the Orthodox permission to use condoms avoids such murders of the innocent.

What?

Are you really telling me that Catholic women take the pill because the Church teaches they cannot use condoms?

No, that is simply silly.

Catholic couples are told that both the Pill and condoms will send them to hell.

The result for their spiritual fate in eternity is the same - eternal fire.

So the Catholic couples whom I know using contraception chose to use the Pill - they're told they're going to hell either way, right? Catholic couples find the use of the Pill more convenient than condoms.

And Orthodox couples do not?

In my experience, generally no. You may like to consult Fr Ambrose Young about his experience (although I do not know the sizes of the parishes of which he was parish priest.)

This still does not negate the fact that you have traded one sin for another. And I do not think your experience with condom users is necessarily universal, any more than it is verifiable.